- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
April 15, 2024Robins Kaplan Named to 2024 BTI Client Service A-Team
-
April 9, 2024Robins Kaplan LLP Files Complaint Against Social Media Giants Meta, Snap, TikTok on Behalf of Spirit Lake Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin
-
April 8, 2024Tara Sutton, Emily Tremblay Shortlisted for Euromoney’s Women in Business Law Awards
-
April 24, 2024IP Leadership Executive Summit
-
April 24, 2024IP Odyssey: Navigating the Latest Developments in Intellectual Property Law
-
April 30, 2024Navigating Generational Dynamics
-
March 2024e-Commerce: Pitfalls and Protections
-
March 22, 2024‘In re Cellect’:
-
March 14, 2024How Many Cases Have You Tried to a Verdict?
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Read our attorneys' take on the latest news and trends in the legal and business industries.
GENERICally Speaking Hatch Waxman Bulletin
The Hatch-Waxman Litigation practice group at Robins Kaplan LLP is pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the generics business.
Vol. 5, No. 1
Spring 2015
The Spring 2015 issue of the GENERICally Speaking email campaign provides you and your company with some of the knowledge beneficial to remaining attentive to the complexity of ANDA patent litigation.
Relevant court decisions highlighted in this issue:
- Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
- Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.
- Cadence Pharms., Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.
Read more about these and other important court decisions, New ANDA Cases, ANDA Litigation Settlements, ANDA Approvals, and Generic Launches.
Related Professionals
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied because specific jurisdiction exists where Defendant is registered to do business in the forum state and maintains an agent to accept service of process there.
Statutory disclaimer of a patent alone does not eliminate “case or controversy” declaratory-judgment jurisdiction.
Given Federal Circuit’s broader claim construction in preceding appeal, patent-in-suit was found on remand to be invalid as obvious, and objective indicia did not support a contrary finding.
Federal Circuit affirms district court’s findings that the patents-in-suit are valid and infringed.
Specific jurisdiction may exist by sending Notice of ANDA filing letter to the branded drug manufacturer.
Compliance with registered agent statute in Delaware establishes consent to jurisdiction in Delaware for all causes of action.
Reference Listed Drug, NDA Holder, Generic Drug Name, ANDA Applicant(s), Indication and Launch Date
The site of incorporation conferred specific jurisdiction.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied because defendants consented to specific jurisdiction by registering to do business in the forum state and maintaining an agent to accept service of process there.
FDA’s summary-judgment motion that the FDA’s revocation of Ranbaxy’s tentatively approved ANDA was proper is granted; Ranbaxy’s motion for preliminary injunction denied.
The finding of obviousness is affirmed in view of at least seven prior-art references and the panel majority’s acceptance of the district court’s credibility finding concerning defendant’s expert witnesses.
Consent to jurisdiction occurs when complying with registered-agent statute; filing an ANDA is not an initiation of a civil suit precluding the filing of an IPR.
Given the prior art disclosures, coupled with weak evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness, the court found the patent-in-suit invalid as obvious.
Takeda’s motion to strike TWi’s expert opinions was granted when those opinions were not expressed in TWi’s invalidity contentions.
When claim construction is at issue, the Federal Circuit is to review intrinsic evidence de novo and factual finding associated with extrinsic evidence for clear error.
The claims at issue were a combination of known elements, arranged in a known way, to produce expected results, and the patentee simply patented the resulting blood concentration.
Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.